Author Topic: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2.... (Read 8440 times)

Nash · « **Reply #345 on:** July 30, 2005, 07:54:49 PM »

Lets try again then.

Why do you think that Bush said this when his own people were telling him that it simply wasn't true?

Can you answer that or not?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #346 on:** July 30, 2005, 08:02:28 PM »

Why he chose one conflicting report to believe over another?

Probably the same reason you choose to do the very same thing. A preconceived notion.

Raider179 · « **Reply #347 on:** July 30, 2005, 08:30:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why he chose one conflicting report to believe over another?

Probably the same reason you choose to do the very same thing. A preconceived notion.

Holden you just answered the question.

He had TWO DIFFERING points of view on it, yet he included it into his SOTU speech anyway. Saying "according to American sources there is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellow cake" wouldnt have fit the speech as well as " The british government has evidence..."

A clear example of "fixing" information.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #348 on:** July 30, 2005, 09:16:57 PM »

um WMD's or not - No president is gonna sit idly by after 9/11 (cept perhaps Clinton) and let that happen again. Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out. So what's another war to them? Now its a 'If I were prez, I'd have done this or I'd have done that and I'd be the hero right now since I'd be right...' mentality. Noone in that position is gonna have an easy go at it. Or would they?

Raider179 · « **Reply #349 on:** July 30, 2005, 09:22:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Black Sheep
um WMD's or not - No president is gonna sit idly by after 9/11 (cept perhaps Clinton) and let that happen again. Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out. So what's another war to them? Now its a 'If I were prez, I'd have done this or I'd have done that and I'd be the hero right now since I'd be right...' mentality. Noone in that position is gonna have an easy go at it. Or would they?

well thats just all hypothetical mess because Bush is President and another war is nothing to them but it is to us.

I would have thought everything would be backburner till Osama had his head on a pole, but thats just me.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #350 on:** July 30, 2005, 09:30:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
well thats just all hypothetical mess because Bush is President and another war is nothing to them but it is to us.

I would have thought everything would be backburner till Osama had his head on a pole, but thats just me.

Me too, if a guy like that wasn't funded from Iraq...or Afghanistan...or wherever else.

Manedew · « **Reply #351 on:** July 31, 2005, 12:44:45 AM »

Osama is a Saudi prince.... you know, our allies?

He was also trained and supplied by the CIA to fight the Russians in Astudmuffinanistan..... don't get confused. I know Bush tries hard to confuse you ... but Iraq(Saddam) and Osama have no links, and never have.

________________________

Quote

Iraq was and has been for over 2000 years a hotspot of chaos and perpetual war, both inside and out.

Your history books only go back 2000 years? quite a bit longer than that really

... mankind is warlike, like most animals ... and Babylon is the frist great city.

____________________________
Bush seems to think things are soooo simple
I remember him being helpless under pressure as Governor of Texas.... he was stuttering mess when south Texas was flooded with like 30" of rain in a couple of days. He seemed shocked when he heard news America was under attack(I'm sure you've seen the tape?) .... same old weak draft dodger.

And what simplistic arrogance ...

The plan for the new American century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

a blog about it
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000012.html

Take up the White man's burden
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/kipling.html

_____________________________

I think it's a pathetic shame the way this president uses the 9/11 tradgedies for his neocon agenda's.

And he had to 'fix' things to get his way...... as this thread throughly points out.

You that defend Bush and Rove are splitting hairs over wording, like what the meaning of is, is ..... but this is over 5,000 dead Americans, and by some estimates a 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians....... a little diffrant than a halftruth about sex.

I'm no great fan of Clinton but at least he's not an arrogant fool.

Nash · « **Reply #352 on:** July 31, 2005, 01:34:20 AM »

At some point, folks are really gonna need to decide if Bush is even worth gettin' dragged over the coals for.

When nothing was known it was easy to parachute in - the mighty 101st Fighting Keyboardists to the rescue - and make any whoopeeed blustery bravado-like Freedom statement.

Now it just looks like they're doing the moonwalk.

Manedew · « **Reply #353 on:** July 31, 2005, 05:04:26 AM »

Quote

At some point, folks are really gonna need to decide if Bush is even worth gettin' dragged over the coals for.

well .... I'd think the basis for this thread shows just how many coals you might be drag'd over... if you challenge big brother bush

I don't feel that bad for Plame herself... I feel bad for her freinds/contacts she might have had that may be in danger as we BS.

In case you don't understand ... such people are bigger 'patriots' than you or me.

But to 'Bushies' it was all means to an end to sacrifice these people for a spin/fix.... to a war they wanted loooong before 9/11

Toad · « **Reply #354 on:** July 31, 2005, 09:29:28 AM »

My answer was unsatisfactory to you? My gosh, I am SO sorry.

I'm not predisposed to a "get Bush" position; I think that is why my answer was unsatisfactory to you.

I don't think he lied. I think he made a decision based on the information presented to him. If it can be shown he deliberately lied, I'll support impeachment.

And the Brit memos do not show that, despite Raider's fervent wet dreaming. If they did, Congress would already have started impeachment proceedings and the media would be in a feeding frenzy.

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

I indeed had no evidence that Iraq was not a threat. Just as I have no evidence that Sweden is not a threat.

[/b]

Yah, Iraq WAS just like Sweden! How did I miss THAT? I mean when the Swedes gassed one of their ethnic minorities, invaded Norway as a "lost province", shot at US and Brit aircraft on almost a daily basis in the "no-fly zone", threw out UN WMD inspectors, defied the UN SC.... my gosh......... HOW did I miss all that?

Quote

The Bush admin lied about Iraq's attempt to buy uranium in Africa.

Holden seems to have covered this while I was away. No point in repeating it. That, Nash, is a choice you've made to believe one conflicting report over another. You are became teh Boosh.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #355 on:** July 31, 2005, 12:10:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Holden you just answered the question.

He had TWO DIFFERING points of view on it, yet he included it into his SOTU speech anyway. Saying "according to American sources there is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellow cake" wouldnt have fit the speech as well as " The british government has evidence..."

A clear example of "fixing" information.

The same as proving Bush had dead bang evidence that there was no threat by throwing away the British Intel report. That fixes the information to fit that argument.

You cannot be consistant in arguement if you use the very same tactics you rail against.

Raider179 · « **Reply #356 on:** July 31, 2005, 03:12:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The same as proving Bush had dead bang evidence that there was no threat by throwing away the British Intel report. That fixes the information to fit that argument.

You cannot be consistant in arguement if you use the very same tactics you rail against.

The consistency lies in the fact that he "used" the information instead of leaving it out of the speech. If it was questionable, i.e two different sources saying two different things, it should have been left out. It was included because it fit into the other bunch of lies they told us. I guess no one remembers George Tenet's Claim "Its a slam dunk", or Colin Powell at the U.N. with friggin drawings of alledged "Iraqi Mobile Labs".

Name 1 peice of Pre-war intel about WMD or Terrorism that turned out to be true....

Raider179 · « **Reply #357 on:** July 31, 2005, 03:18:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
And the Brit memos do not show that, despite Raider's fervent wet dreaming. If they did, Congress would already have started impeachment proceedings and the media would be in a feeding frenzy.

Sorry but your not gonna convince me that "fixed" meant he was placing the facts and intel correctly around the policy. That sounds as dumb as believing it. I see you answered none of the questions I posed and instead bypassed them. I don't blame you, they are tough to answer if you are defending the side you are on.

Like I also said there has been a call for congressional investigation. And as for the media, there has been wide-spread speculation as to why the story hasn't gotten more attention. I did watch the 1st meeting on the downing memo on CSPAN and I gotta tell ya, those who were in the room, were pretty confident about what "fixed" meant.

Raider179 · « **Reply #358 on:** July 31, 2005, 03:37:16 PM »

Lets just for the sake of argument assume Bush was only wrong and didnt lie. Perhaps you could point me to where he apologizes or even admits that the intel was faulty? His top advisor does but Bush (the one who actually spoke the BS) does not. Why?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #359 on:** July 31, 2005, 05:39:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
The consistency lies in the fact that he "used" the information instead of leaving it out of the speech...

I am not defending Bush or the decision to go to war.

I am pointing out that one cannot with consistancy criticise someone else for picking and choosing "facts" that bolster his position while practicing the same behavior while making that criticism.

If one were to criticize Bush for choosing the British Intellegence and throwing out other information he had, an honest argument cannot throw out the British Intellegence report simply because it contradicted the criticism of Bush.